N PS ARCHIVE 1965 RUSHING, C. IB II 111 i{«Tl»»iHf'' INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT OF SERVICE TENURE UPON PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AS MEASURED BY THE STRUCTURED- wiiRamiM««ro5 'li'i'r- TEST (SORTJ CHARLES F. RUSHING DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA 93v43-5101 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT OF SERVICE TENURE UPON PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AS MEASURED BY THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST (SORT) Charles F. Rushing AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT OF SERVICE TENURE UPON PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AS MEASURED BY THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST (SORT) by Charles F. Rushing Lieutenant Commander, United States Navy Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT United States Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 19 6 5 u- s. Nm! Postgraduate DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY «-ere, c^ **- NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA 93943-5101 AN INVESTIGATION OF THE POSSIBLE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT OF SERVICE TENURE UPON PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS AS MEASURED BY THE STRUCTURED-OBJECTIVE RORSCHACH TEST (SORT) by Charles F. Rushing This work is accepted as fulfilling the research paper requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT from the United States Naval Postgraduate School ABSTRACT Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT) scores of 218 United States Naval Postgraduate School students were subjected to a multiple regression analysis to determine if there is an effect of service tenure upon personality characteristics. The results obtained indicate that SORT scores, which are a measure of personality characteristics, are probably random in respect to service tenure and age. The study includes a review of the history of group Ror- schach methods, civilian and military, and evaluates the possible future use of the SORT in the Navy, It concluded that the value of the SORT for military group comparisons is undetermined, and that further use of the test at the Naval Postgraduate School is necessary in order that its value definitely may be established. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page Abstract i i Table of Contents iii List of Tables v I Statement of the Problem 1 The Problem 1 Social Purpose 2 Definitions of Key Terms 2 Assumptions 6 Limitations 7 Research Significance 9 Review of the Literature 14 I I The Study 16 Method 16 Materials 17 Respondents 17 Procedures 18 Col lection of Data 18 Calculation of SORT Attribute Scores 19 Preparation of B1MD Programs 20 Computer Use 20 Results 20 SORT Variable Analysis 21 SORT Attribute Analysis 21 Analysis of the Results 25 Matrix Comparison 25 Removal of High Deviations 25 i i i Chapter Title Page Discriminant Analysis 25 Summary and Conclusions 27 Summary 27 Conclusions 28 Recommendations 29 Bi bl iography 3 1 Appendix 33 I v LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Table for Converting T-Scores to Ratings k 2 Subject Group Composition 18 3 SORT Variable Correlation Matrix 22 k SORT Attribute Correlation Matrix 23 5 Discriminant Analysis, Groups 1 and k 26 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Since 1921, when Dr. Hermann Rorschach introduced his first model of the projective psychological test, the "ink-blot" techni- que of personality interpretation has become one of the most valuable tools in the fields of Psychology, Sociology, Psychiatry, and Anthropology. Behavioral scientists have developed, in the past forty years, many types of personality tests for use in the clinic as well as in education and industry. While no one test can stand alone as a panacea in the search for a yardstick of trait characteristics, the Rorschach technique remains pre-eminent, Over the years, several variations of the original Rorschach methods have evolved, the characteristics of each being dependent upon its intended use. One of these, the "Structured-Objective Rorschach Test" (SORT), was developed by the California Test Bureau for use in education and industry as an aid in vocational guidance and personnel selection. The military services are now making relatively little use of Rorschach methods. This study will analyse the SORT scores of 218 Naval Postgraduate School students and, through regression and discriminant analysis, relate the results to possible further utilization of the SORT in the naval service. THE PROBLEM This research study was undertaken to investigate the possible existence of an effect of service tenure upon person- ality characteristics as measured by the SORT. Do organizational stresses and environmental conditions within the Navy operate to shift personality differences among naval personnel? If so, are these shifts proportional to individual length of service? SOCIAL PURPOSE A study of this nature might benefit the Navy, the other military services and, perhaps, industry in the following ways: 1. It would add to the store of knowledge of group personality characteristics, thereby: a. permitting a further degree of comparison of an individual with his contemporaries as an aid in the evalu- ation of his performance, and b. aiding in the assignment of personnel to differentiated groups, as an adjunct to other tests and criteria. 2. It might reveal the effects of organizational stresses upon group personality characteristics. Identifiable features of the organization might then be changed to offset undesirable trends. 3. Information obtained in a study of this type might be useful in other highly structured organizations, such as in industry. k. If it is determined by this and further studies that personality characteristics are consistent over time, pre- enl istment/pre-commiss ioning personality assessment tests would bear closer relationships to subsequent performance. DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS Personal i ty: ... the progressive final integration of al 1 the systems of response that represent an individual's adjustment to his various environments. -- Gordon W. Allport (1, p. 3^9) Service Tenure: The number of years an Individual has served on active duty in the military. For this study, service tenure has been computed to the nearest six months as of the date of the test. En 1 isted Service, Commissioned Service, Longevi ty: The three categories of service tenure as used in this study, the latter being the sum of the other two. Regression Analysis: Yamane (18, p. 368, p.640) defines sim- ple linear regression analysis as the computation of a relation between two variables that are related causally. "Multiple" linear regression analysis, which is used in this study, cal- culates the relation among one dependent variable and two or more independent variables. Here, we handle three separate measures of service tenure (individually) as dependent variables, and measure the interrelationships of as many as 25 independent variables (SORT scores). D? scriminant Analysi s : A means of calculating a best index for discrimination between two or more groups. (17, BIMD 05, p.l) Structured-Object 1 ve Rorschach Test (SORT) : A forced response paper-and-penci 1 projective ink-blot personality test designed to appraise vocationally significant personality traits. (14) SORT Variables: The 15 stimulus-responses to the character- istics of ink-blots which the subject may make. See the Appendix for a complete description. They will be referred to in this study by their symbols, i.e.: W, D, Dd, Fch, etc. SORT T-Scores: A measure of the subject's responses to the various characteristics of the ink-blots. T-Scores are normalized standard scores having arithmetic means equal to 50 and standard 3 deviations equal to 10. Relationships between T-Scores are interpreted as having similar magnitude of differences all along the scales. This stability of comparison is the specific virtue accounting for the use of T-Scores in the SORT, making it possible to convert T-Scores to ratings as follows: (14, p. 13) TABLE 1 TABLE FOR CONVERTING T-SCORES TO RATINGS Expected T-Scores Ratings Per Cent of Cases 66-80 High 7% 55-65 Above Average 23% 45-55 Average 40% 35-44 Below Average 23% 20-34 Low 7% Percentages based on Normative Population of SORT which consisted of over 8000 adults drawn from diverse occupations. (14, p. 4-10) SORT Attributes: The personality "factors" (25 of which are used in this study) derived from interpretation of the SORT Variables. In the case of the SORT, interpretation of attributes relies on basic Rorschach interpretation, which assumes a relation- ship between the kinds of responses to the stimulus-blots and "behavior domains" (Attributes). (14, p. 7-8) A complete des- cription of the Attributes may be found in the Appendix. SORT Attribute Scores: Derived from the T-Scores through the relationships implied by the definitions of the Attributes. Formulae are included with the Attribute definitions in the Appendix. It should be noted that a constant, 60, was added to all formulae which result in ranges from -60 tov+60, changing the ranges to 0-120. This would facilitate plotting and also render input data acceptable to certain BIMD programs. 4 Program B1MD 3*+: One of the BIMD (Biomedical) Series of computer programs, prepared in the Division of B iostati sties , University of California at Los Angeles, with support in part from the National Institutes of Health, U. S. Public Health Service. Available in the USNPGS Computer Facility Library, the programs are written in FORTRAN language and, in this case, were used with the CDC 1604 Computer. The BIMD Ik program cal- culates multiple regression in a stepwise manner, i.e., at each step an independent variable is added to the regression equation which makes the greatest improvement in "goodness of fit". (17) Program BIMD 05: This program computes a linear function of n variables measured on each individual of two groups which in a certain sense serves as a best index for discrimination between the groups., e.g., "discriminant analysis". (17) Correl at ion Coefficient: A measure of the degree of re- lationship between two or more variables or, in other words, the degree to which variables or measures vary together. Mathematically, the value may range from a perfect positive correlation (+1.0) through no relationship (0.0) to a perfect negative correlation (-1.0). When correlating variables, the coefficients indicate roughly the following strengths of re- lationships between the variables: (7, p. 219) Less than .20 ...Slight* almost negligible relation. .20-.40 Low correlation, definite but slight rel at ionship. .40-. 70 ........ .Moderate correlation, substantial rel ationship. ,70-. 90 High congelation, marked relationship. .90-1.0 Very high correlation, very dependable rel ationship. 5 Those who employ tests in guidance and selection consider that a correlation coefficient should be at least ,k5 for material usefulness and that best results are obtained when the coefficient is above .60. Level of S igni f icance: The maximum probab i 1 i ty with which we would be willing to risk a Type I error (rejection of an hypo- thesis which should be accepted). Or, conversely, with a signi- ficance level of .01, we are 99% confident that we have made the right decision. (15, p. 168) Desired significance level for this study is .05. F-Statlst?c: A factor which indicates the degree of variance between two groups, such degree of variance being dependent upon the relationship between that factor and the "degrees of freedom" which exist. (18, p. 610) Degrees of Freedom: The number of elements that can be chosen freely; or, the number of variables that can vary freely; or, the number of independent variables. (18, p. k~/k) ASSUMPTIONS 1. It is theoretically possible to separate the effects of age (developmental differences) and service tenure (organizational effect differences), although the two are interdependent and often intuitively inseparable. 2. The validity of standard statistical methods as utilized in the BIMD Series is assumed. 3. Service in the U. S. Coast Guard would expose a per- sonality to the same organizational stresses as would service in the U. S. Navy. LIMITATIONS The performance of this study and the interpretation and use of its results are subject to the following limitations: 1. The number of subjects (observations) was limited by the number of completed SORT tests available at the time of this study. Results from this year's tests were immediately available, while SORT scores from last year's Management group were obtained from the Dreese-Russel 1 study (5, p. 43-52). 2. Since almost half of the subjects were from last year's group and not located in the area, the only personal information available on all subjects is that which is found in the Navy Register (3) and the Coast Guard Register (16). Access to general service performance records (i.e., fitness reports, etc.) is not attainable. 3. It is possible that the sample of 218 subjects is too small to give dependable results. Further, since it was neces- sary to "mix" aviators with Supply Corps officers, etc., there may be differences in sub-group norms which counteract with one another and spoil correlation of the variables. k. Before the results of this study can be applied to the naval service as a whole, it should be recognized that this subject group is not truly representative of an "average" group of naval officers. With few exceptions, subjects are all "successes" in their fields, and it is presumed that each was picked to attend the Postgraduate School on the basis of pro- mising potential. Not all naval officers on active duty possess the same level of potential as does this group. 5. Mary D. Ainsworth and Bruno Klopfer warn that: ... to fill the "flesh" of the personality In a meaningful way it is highly desirable to con- sider the Rorschach findings in the context of findings from other psychological tests and case history information. (9, Vol. I, p. 251-252) 6. The Literature is replete with reminders that the test situation itself can influence Rorschach scores to a marked degree. Gibbey, Kimble, and Lord, in three separate experi- ments (9, Vol.1, p. 457-^+59) , successfully determined (in the order cited) that: a. The Rorschach technique is not wholly resistent to deliberate efforts on the part of the subject to change his pattern of response, particularly in the case of normal, flexible subjects. b. The standard Rorschach Test, when taken in a "social" situation, produced strikingly different results than when taken individually. c. The change in "atmosphere" produced by changing the examiner resulted in different responses by the same in- dividuals in a test-retest situation. This test was taken by the several sub-groups at different times and proctored by several different examiners. Although the SORT is relatively insusceptible to effects of the test situation (14, p.l6), degree of influence cannot be determined since test- retest checking of the results were not conducted. 7. Joics B. Stone (\k, p. 16-17) offers the following cautions in the use of SORT results: a. The visual acuity of the subject could have an effect on the SORT score, but such an effect has not been 8 documented in the hostory of the SORT. Neither has this possible effect been considered in this study: it has been assumed that poor vision was, in each case, corrected with glasses. (This is required of active-duty naval officers). b. Interpretations of temperament must be conditional. The inherent dynamic emotional structure of an individual may fluxuate from time to time. This study did not utilize test- retest methods to isolate this factor. c. SORT data indicates "tendencies" and not "skills". (See the Appendix for a complete description of SORT Attributes.) 8. Personality traits are interrelated one to another and each individual trait score should not be perceived out of con- text with the overall score profile. 9. In view of the General Telephone Study, the Brigham Young University Study, and certain I nteroccupat i onal Compari- sons, all described in the SORT Manual (14, p. 6-7) as successful tests of the concurrent validity of SORT, it is considered that the SORT is a valid and reliable test. The validity and relia- bility of the particular tests taken in this study, however, cannot be checked directly since a study of this exact nature has never been attempted before with the SORT, and naval officer group norms are not available. Comparison of the SORT correlation matrix with this study's matrix is discussed in the Procedures sect ion . RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Use of the Rorschach technique in the military since the Korean Conflict has been limited. A search of Department of Defense Documentation Center files reveals only a few examples 9 now on record, although Holtzman (8, p. k) and Molish (11) describe an upsurge in the use of Rorschach methods as a pre- selection device during World War II. The Molish paper, published in 1956, concerns itself only with the Rorschach test as used in the military in a prognostic, rather than a diagnostic role. Molish, a PhD and Navy Medical Service Corps officer, pointed out that the Rorschach was used in many variations from standard procedures. One of the tests developed for the services which bore a close relationship to traditional methods, however, was the Multiple Choice Rorschach (MCR) . Dr. Molish describes the use of this test in large military groups for the purpose of predicting future performance. Procedures for this test included an individual inquiry conducted with each subject by a skilled Rorschach worker. (The MCR, then, is relatively unstructured, when compared with the SORT.) Molish concluded that the use of large scale Rorschach techniques as applied to the problems of selection and screening of large military populations is not too encouraging since "... It would appear that even when applied to normal superior adults, any interpretation of Rorschach scores must be made within the frame- work of the norms for that subpopul at ion to which the subject belongs." (11, p .8 1 3 ) In his summary, Molish generalized his review of military use of Rorschach to date (1956) as being of "limited adequacy". (11, p. 815) An abstract of a study by Fokkema, conducted in Europe, describes an unsuccessful attempt to construct a foolproof quantitative Rorschach score for selection purposes in aviation psychology. The author concluded that construction of such a score was not yet possible. (6) 10 Dreese and Russell (5) used the SORT, together with several other tests, to determine predictors of academic per- formance in the Management Curriculum at the Navy Postgraduate School. They concluded that SORT, by itself, was not a useful predictor. After a thorough review of Rorschach research up to this time, although many group studies using military personnel have been made, it appears that no study for the purpose specified herein has ever been accomplished. It would seem appropriate at this point to reiterate the goal of this study in order that a parallel may be drawn with other research in the field of group comparison techniques. Regression analyses will be performed to determine if there is a correlation among service tenure (and age) on one side of the coin and personality factors (SORT Variables or SORT Attributes) on the other. If high correlations do exist, the results would serve to either confirm or delimit popular intuitive beliefs about naval officers such as: Senior officers are more rigid than junior officers; junior officers tend to pay more attention to detail than senior officers; the longer you stay in the ser- vice, the more you conform; etc. It would also seem possible, given a SORT Variable matrix loaded with high correlation co- efficients, to take an individual's SORT Variable scores and say, "There is a high probability that this officer is about 3k years old, has been commissioned for ten years, and began his service as an enlisted man for several years before entering the Naval Academy." We could also take his Attribute scores and compare his personality profile with that of his contemporaries' group 11 norms and determine, for instance, whether or not he is "more rigid" or "more structured" than the average officer in his category. It is in the latter area that this project differs from other studies in the field of group comparison. According to Klopfer, et. al. (9, Vol, I , p. 465-469): Usually such group comparisons limit themselves to statistical treatment of the various scoring cate- gories and quantitative proportions and omit con- siderations of qualitative differences. For example, the SORT Manual (14), in its tabulations of group norms, limits the comparisons to the differences in SORT Variable scores: the SORT Attributes (qualitative scores) are not used in group comparisons but only in analysing the individual. Quantitative analysis of the SORT Variables is made a part of this study, but only for checking the results of qualitative analysis of the Attributes. Klopfer would argue that this is "skating on thin ice", so to speak: ... it is rare that a group comparison is suffi- ciently crucial to lend strong positive support to the claim for validity of any given hypothesis, but rather support is to be found in the general con- gruency of the Rorschach findings with "common sense" of theoretical understanding of the differential character of groups. ... Thus, group comparisons are a means of detecting grossly invalid hypotheses, and sometimes provide a basis for the delimitation of the generality of interpretative hypotheses. (9, Vol.1, p. 465-466) In other words, we could "prove" ourselves right with mediocre correlations, so long as our intuitive beliefs about a naval officer group are generally congruent with the SORT findings -- but it would require very high correlations to convince us that we are wrong, and we could very wel 1 be wrong. Perhaps an }2 officer with 20 years service should score lower on Conformity than one with 10 years longevity, but such a conclusion would contradict intuition. (Proper use of the "level of significance" guards against such erroneous findings.) Just such a paradox was uncovered in an experiment by Roe (9, Vol.1, p. 466-^77). It has long been hypothesized that "M" responses (human movement) were related to "creativity". But Roe found that M responses were less frequent among a group of high-ranking artists, and she therefore concluded that the Rorschach concept of creativity referred to "personality" rather than to "output" in the sense of artistic production. This parallels Stone's reminder that SORT scores indicate "tendencies" and not "skills". Before leaving the subject of research significance, it would be well to mention that the field of Rorschach group comparisons abounds with examples of relatively successful studies which indicate the existence of organizational and developmental effects upon the personality. Klopfer's anthology (9), and Sherman's volume (13) include many significant contri- butions in the investigation of organizational (which include cultural and institutional) effects upon groups. This would lend justification to an hypothesis that service in the military does change the personality. In the realm of developmental effects, Holtzman includes a study by Thrope (9, p. 181-183) which indicates group norm Rorschach score changes at a level of significance less than 1%. Louise Bates Ames has conducted several experiments with developmental changes (2, p. 287-315; 12, p.l60-l6l), especially with children and elderly people. 13 These indications that developmental effects do probably occur prompted the inclusion of "age" as a dependent variable in this regression analysis. The number of studies which have proved "successful" in the areas of institutional and developmental effects is im- posing, indeed -- but one cannot help but ponder the number which have produced insignificant data and may have gone un- reported. The fact that those responses which produce significant changes vary from one study to another is perhaps indicative of the inconsistencies in this area. For example, Ames (2) reports increasingly high "F" (form) responses with age, while Thorpe's study (9, p.l8l-l83) registers an increase of F in the early stages, tapering off to a decrease in later life. Ames found a change in "A" (animal) response, while Thorpe did not. It seems likely that the responses which change vary as often as the age groups studied vary. The different cultural backgrounds of the groups may also produce differences in developmental changes. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE It is the opinion of the author that the field of Rorschach Psychology was researched as deeply as necessary for the purpose of this study. It was our intention to outline non-military research only to the extent necessary to justify the hypotheses. A thorough search of military records uncovered no studies which bore a direct relationship to this project. Following is a list of sources investigated: 1. A request to the Defense Documentation Center for references to all uses of the Rorschach Test in the military, with no date 1 imi t. 1A 2. Correspondence with the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. 3. Correspondence with the Psychological Research Branch of the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Navy Department, Washington, D. C. k. An inquiry to the Personnel Research Activity, U. S. Naval Base, San Diego, California. 5. Search of the Navy Postgraduate School Library files for all pertinent references. 6. Psychological Abstracts 7. Dissertation Abstracts 8. Current Periodicals 15 CHAPTER I I THE STUDY METHOD The main function of this study was to perform multiple regression analysis of SORT score data and personal history data, using 218 male officer students of the Naval Postgraduate School as subjects. The purpose of the analysis was to find the relationships among the personal data (service tenure classifi- cations and age) and the SORT scores. The problem, in effect, consisted of eight sub-problems: Sub-Prob Dependent Variable Independent Variables 1. Commissioned Service 15 SORT Variable Scores 2. Former Enlisted Ser. 15 SORT Variable Scores 3. Total Service 15 SORT Variable Scores k. Age 15 SORT Variable Scores 5. Commissioned Service 25 SORT Attribute Scores 6. Former Enlisted Ser. 25 SORT Attribute Scores 7. Total Service 25 SORT Attribute Scores 8. Age 25 SORT Attribute Scores As a check on the results of the regression analysis, a dis- criminant analysis was performed using two sub-groups of approxi- mately the same size and composition: 96 members of the 1964 Management Class and 100 members of the 1 965 Management Class. This analysis was performed to determine if a significant "difference" existed between the two groups. 16 MATERIALS Materials used in both analyses have been described pre- viously in the Description of Terms section. They are: scores taken from the SORT tests, the BIMD J>k program, and the BIMD 05 program. There is a distinction between the SORT and the tra- ditional Rorschach test, and perhaps that distinction should be made clear at this point. The standard Rorschach makes use of ten "ink-blots", and a score is determined by the subject's reaction (responses) to those ink blots. The test is usually given to one subject at a time, with the test administrator taking an active part and allowing the subject to elicit a wide variety of responses. The SORT uses the same 10 ink blots, but the test is administered to groups and the administrator merely acts as a projectionist and proctor. The subject is given limited, multiple-choice response, and the number of responses to each blot is fixed. This structured feature of the SORT permits its use in groups as well as making it possible for administration by field psychologists who are relatively in- experienced in Rorschach methods. Further, the scores are adaptable to quantitative analysis, a valuable feature where this study is concerned. RESPONDENTS Two Hundred and eighteen (2 1 8 ) male officer students at the U. S. Naval Postgraduate School were used as subjects for this study. These subjects were members of four distinct sub- groups: 1. Members of current Management Curriculum (100) 2. Members of current Data Processing Curriculum (15) 17 3. Miscellaneous students, 1964-65 (7) 4. Members of the 1963-64 Management Curriculum (96) TABLE 2, below, shows the composition of each group, and the percentages of each category relative to that group. Group designations are keyed to input data in the Appendix. TABLE 2 SUBJECT GROUP COMPOSITION AVE. SERV AVE. COMM ACAD GEN AVI A- STAFF GROUP AGE SERV GRADS LINE T10N CORPS MISC. TOTAL 1 33.7 9.7 31 31% 33 33% 29 29% 25 25% 13 13% 100 2 31.6 8.3 1 1 73% 3 20% 2 13% 9 60% 1 7% 15 3 34.4 10.9 0 2 29% 5 71% 0 0 7 4 35.8 12.0 27 28% 69 32% 35 36% 73 34'/ 24 25% 60 28% 27 10% 61 28% 10 24 11% 96 TOTALS1 (%) 218 PROCEDURES Col lect ion of Data. SORT scores from the Dreese-Russel 1 study (5, p. 43-52) for Group 4 and the scores for the remaining three groups were collected. Since the Dreese-Russel 1 scores were "raw", it was necessary to convert this data by means of the nomagrams (14, p. 284). Subjects were listed by name, along with the T-Scores for each of the 15 SORT Variables. By either direct reference to, or interpolation of, data found in the Navy Register (3) or the Coast Vertical column totals only. 18 Guard Register (16), the following statistics for each subject were obtained: 1. Source of Commission (USNA, USCGA, NROTC, etc.) 2. Corps Designator (1100, 1310, 3500, etc.) 3. Years Commissioned Service at time test was taken, to nearest six months. k. Years former enlisted service, to nearest six months. 5. Age, to nearest six months at time test was taken. Student numbers (001-218) were then assigned to each subject and the names were discarded. Following this step, ADP cards were punched, one card per subject. Calcul ation of SORT Attr? bute Scores. Since one-half of this study was a multiple regression analysis using the Attribute scores, the next step was to calculate the Attribute values as functions of the SORT Variable scores used in the other half of the study. Formulae for this calculation are included with each Attribute definition in the Appendix. Program REGRESS 1 (see Appendix) was used for this task. In this problem, Y(l,J) through Y(15, J) are the SORT Variables, while TY(1,J) through TY(25,J) are the SORT Attributes. "J" represents the student numbers, and this J value in the DO Loop permits computation of all 25 personality factors for each of the 218 subjects. The formulae used in REGRESS 1 were deduced from the SORT Manual descriptions (14, p.13-1^) and by analysis of the ABAC tables (]k, p. 25-27). The "S-Equi val ent" and "CF-Equi val ent" factor formulae (SEQ and CFEQ) were obtained through graphical 19 analysis. An IF statement provides for the three variations in the SEQ formula which are determined by the value of S in relation to 50. Eight of the Attribute scores (8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 25) begin at negative values, ranging from -60 to+60. To facilitate plotting and to render the scores more adaptable to the BIMD program series, a constant, 60, was added to each such formula. This resulted in a positive range from 0 to 120 for each of those eight variables. This change would not effect the results of the study. Preparation of B IMP Programs. Control data cards for the BIMD 3*+ program were then prepared. Since the input data did not include a figure for Total Service, it was necessary to use a transgenerat ion card in the program to add the values of Commissioned Service and Enlisted Service. This sum, total service, was designated LONGEV and inserted into the problems as a dependent variable. Computer Use. Two main problems were run with the BIMD 3*+ program on the CDC 1 604 Computer: one was an analysis of the relationship between the service tenure categories and SORT Variables, and the other between service tenure and the SORT Attributes. RESULTS The following results were obtained from the main program: SORT Variable Analysis: The highest correlation achieved with this particular analysis was .1^306 between Age as the dependent variable and FC (responses involving color and closely resembling the form of the stimulus). This indicates slight, almost negligible correlation. 20 SORT Attribute Analysis: The highest correlation in this matrix is .1^907, between Enlisted Service as the dependent variable and Moodiness as the independent variable. This also indicates slight, almost negligible correlation. Correl at ion Matrices : Tables 3 and k, beginning on the next page, are the correlation matrices for the two main programs. 21 »d w 9 * brj brj CO o o N o **\ o -3 H 03 M I Ol HI ol o <3 O h . 1 • 1 • o> o H fa _ 1 • i • p to to o o ro o H s O ro • o 1 • o Ol • o M • o i # • 1 • • H *. *■ CF> N Ol Ol Ol I H CO I H ro i en O) I •d ^- <+ c+ H O Ol C+ C+ P H O 3* H- 3 "d •d 3 4 ft ft O 3 mo' a3H ro <+ ro 3 ^,3 p i 4 3 "3 H- ro ft ro p 3 a- TJ HOH ro ro 3 to k'<;o 1 to H 1 Cn • H -0 1 I-1 • O Ol I (-■ On I-1 -J CD Ol 1 • N Ol 1 H w to co o -J o o AD CD O O to *» 1 1 < o H 1 o 1 CJ 1 N 1 o to o I-1 1 Ol 1 1 Ol -0 1 o 1 1 to 1 to CD 1 1 o Ol o o to Ol o o oi ro Ol CD Ik &• • • • L O t-> CD I • • •' L o o o to oi h *. r • •' ' I H O O bl O M CD h ro O O OH o> oi ro w o ro lo R0 L V L I] o w t H 19 O H O !*> to H IS 1 3 -p {-I a I X M o M .9 8 o CD 1 Eh O O H 0) co _2>D~vOHtOOOOHO>iO OOOWOlHiOiOOKOiO o lO 1* to w n Q i t i i i i i oooNfrttoionoi'OW till i F- CO CO O CO o> i> CO CO OOO^tOcOiOOWCO 000(0^^(OOiO till I lON^HtOCOOtO OOOOlOtOWH H tO -<* CO C> CO CT> III I CO CO o o to ^ O O O CO ►3 o H EH a 3c Eh < O O O >h O M H H £h H H Eh Eh H ~t R O O ft S 9 8 § § 5 O l-H $3 EH H ii-H HO 01 O H ^2 rQ 01 t3 C CO CO" • H O-H'H 2,2 * Pi fs 01 CO' 02 • CO CO rH «H CI 01 > > ,Q f-j rH CD O CO rQ rH -P EH P* > CO c»3 cd pq -p ^ •H r& ft 01 C CO ^ c H .C 01 > co oi pq -p -c {> p^p C-P oi fiq o oi C Eiflfl-P P^ 01 H 3 01 'CJ ;:q ch^'C c ft 01 C 01 1m ID "C O (D ft ;:q £ g c ^ o P4 -P CO *H -P 'CJ ,'1 oi +3 C ftp * Ph UD-H >> 01 C 01 02 H P> O CD CD £ rH S & • -p o co a cj -P C Cd -H ^ U •H O -P ro CO 01 U) CO •H CO -H C C -P rO ,-{ >^~- O O ^ £ O -H lO -H g CD •H 5H 'Ci C\2 +5 CO P- >!< 8 r'-i t I 1 I I I I 1 I I I i I I I ! 1 i I I I I J . I I i I CO i m til :-! i-i ft H pq H £0 6 B H P3 !-j IrH pH ^ P P4k DO PhO H CO 10 01 COW -i Hi pq £h P)S '1 n 9j H O O O O O «4 CO O EH i ! I ' 1 i I I ! ; i l I i ! i I 1 >H m m •A & O O O O H s Hco Ph S . &>*> >h tq Eh M EHnHi/J ■.a m > p H ^ M P 8Q03 is * sjt rHWcO^Ln^OC-COO. OfH02^'^COo>OHCMcO'^LO>l; HrHHrHrHrHHHrHrH02WC\203C\2C\2 23 *S| lOHC^ CO Z> si1 CO CO iO co m CO CO CQ LO ^ lO CO to Z> ^ "31 CO r-oo>ooooooooooooooooooooooooo I I 1 t I I I I I I I cooic^-cococoo^tor-cocococOrHcor-io^oDo^wr-ooHO OOOlOK^^OOnOitQOO^OOH^'tONH^HOWWtO I 1 t ! I I I I «tf { ODLOLOLOtOOCOj>J>tOcOCOD-<£)OC]OHOCOCQCv-OCv2CO,^tO I CO OOOWrilQcuOOWH^ifltOKO^OiOinoHWtOCOrl I i I I I I i I I I N u Co Pi M i « i3 a Eh a o I cO 00 co CO H CO o CO Cfr H CO H H to H H CO H 02 H ^-COOCOOtOo^r-COCOOr-JC>'^yDCOO'>I>lOrH'£i2>-Cr>iHtO ' COM OO ^COcOcOOC2COoCOOCOi-lCOvOCOcOCOi-Ji>cO£>/H ' rlN I I I I I I H I I I I I tOvOfHCftCOcOr-JtOCOCW C2r-lCOiOC0a>vO2>rWC0^^'C OOOC0C0C0C0i>r-lc0H^>£>t0fHr-l'=J<£>O"^,J>HC0'^ 1 tOj>r-iC^Hr-IOtO^oC0OC0cy>lOJ>- ' OHOWHHH^HmM^tOOHHODWtO^tOiOrt ' « rH CO <£> c- co 0 ; 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 tOC0OC0v0C0C0tOC0cOCT>OHC-tOC0^rHC0^-C0pH ' ' OOOifl'i,HH^ri^tOHriHplHOHWOO> J 1 i 1 0 CO c*- i j CO C2 ,H, II till 1 till 1 1 1 1 ■ lO iflOOO)^ G> H <.OH><10^10(0 C-2 CO tO 0 H ' ' ' OOH^O'*COvi1C0i-IC)J>COfHiOC0rH£>Ci'Nl'HrH ' ' 1 >ON J O H CO 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 I 1 » 1 'III cOHCOcOCOCOcOCOr-JOtOtOv^o^HCOCOCOcO • ! ' ] OHOWHH^O'flrlNHvD'flWOH^iOOCO • 1 tO F- <£> j r-t <£> r-l till III II 1 III ^OHtOtOO^OO^DW^I^^CftCO^OWO^ ' ' » ' ' O H O W H W ^ CO H W W <' W N O H H ^O N ' • • ' 1 r-1 CO O » CO IO CO I II III II 1 I 1 1 OOCOvOO^CO^WHlOOHOiWWWiO » « ' ' ' O OrtH^HH^^cOOHtOtO^cOcO ' ' II 1 1 1 1 1 III ' lO CO CO 1 CO O CO • • • OtOa)OvOF»C02>tOtOz>OC7>OOOlO£> 1 1 ' 1 1 1 r-i O O "^ H ^ J> tO CO O N? * cj a> *# 1 11 III II''1 C2OC^C0c0tOj>OC0C0CT>lOlOC0lOc0 « i 1 1 1 1 1 Or-iOcococooocoooi-nOi-ir-ico ' ' ,1,! | I 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 c> co to O ^ H ' • • • 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 { 1 1 1 tOCO^r-iCOCOOCOOvOCOvOVOlOCO ' ' ' ' • ' ' ' OOOCOOCOCOr-iOcOCOOOOO ' ' ' ' * ' ' 1 z> co d- ' woo I ill 1 t r-l II ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 i 1 I 1 1 1 too>,3<*si1'<31i>c^cocr>o^o*!^HC7>' ' ' ' ' ' * • ! OOOs? WtOcOOOCOrlKOcO * • <£) O lO 1 H CO CT> 1 II 1 1)1111111111 1111:1111 'ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OM^^^H^NLOH^COtO 1 I 1 1 l 1 1 1 « 1 HOOlOWCOtOHO^W^H ! ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1 II III 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 j^lOH CO CO C7> • • • • WMOHWrt^iO^MaJO^OHCVcO^'lOvOC-COOJOHWtO^lO O pq <4 H H H HH H r-l H H i-l CO CO CO CO CO CO ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS As no significant correlations emerged from these two com- puter runs, the following steps were taken to test the validity of the study to this point: 1. Matrix Comparison. The historical SORT Variable cor- relation matrix (14, p. 10) was compared with TABLE 3. Although Holtzman discourages such a comparison (8, p. 146), it was felt that a favorable match between the two matrices would supply a clue to validity. The resemblence was slight. This comparison of matrices would have no bearing on comparative naval officer- civilian SORT scores, but merely is a test of relationships among the SORT Variables themselves. 2. Removal of Hi gh Devi at ions. The cards of al 1 subjects with any one score falling outside the range of plus or minus two standard deviations from the mean were removed from the deck. This was done under the premise that some inaccuracies of the test situation might have upset the correlations. This step did not improve correlations, nor did the new correlation matrix compare favorably (or even closer to) the matrix in the SORT Manual. Only the SORT Variable problem was used for this validity check, since the Attributes are functions of the Var i ables . 3. Discriminant Analysis. A discriminant analysis was run on Groups 1 and k. A glance at TABLE 2 will show that these two groups are similar in both size and occupational group com- position (aviators, general line, staff, etc.), but Average Age and Average Commissioned Service are more than two years greater for Group k. If it were found, in the BIMD 3^ program regression 25 analysis, that personality characteristics do change in relation to age and tenure, then a significant "difference" be- tween the two groups from the BIMD 05 calculations would serve to confirm those findings. It would be necessary, however, for the variables which show the greatest differences in the BIMD 05 program to correspond with those BIMD 34 variables with the highest correlations. Results of the discriminant analysis between Groups 1 and 4 are tabulated below: TABLE 5 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS -- GROUPS 1 AND 4 VARIABLE MEAN, GRP 1 MEAN, GRP 4 DIFFERENCE ORDER 1. W 51.27 52.82 -1.55 8 2. D 49.68 49.06 .62 13 3. Dd 50.18 47.84 2.34 4 4. S 52.28 54.84 -2.56 3 5. F 58.32 57.31 1.01 11 6. F- 49.79 48.03 1.76 6 7. M 51.20 52.54 -1.34 9 8. FM 53.19 53.91 - .72 12 9. FC 49.84 49.98 - .14 15 10. CF 42.04 39.45 2.59 2 11. Fch 47.69 49.26 -1.57 7 12. A 51.71 48.67 3.04 1 13. H 50.63 50.19 .44 14 14. P 47.65 49.61 -1.96 5 15. 0 38.55 39.81 -1.26 10 The above discriminant analy sis results in an F-Stati stic of 2.84 with 180 degrees of freedom. From Yamane1 s Table 5 (18, Appendix) , 26 this indicates a significant difference between the two groups at a level of significance of less than 1%. Although time did not permit further analysis, the author intends to perform further discriminant analysis on these two groups as an extension project, treating Age and Commissioned Service as variables along with the SORT scores. This procedure should determine whether or not Age and Commissioned Service are the discriminant factors. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary. This study was undertaken to investigate the possible existence of an effect of service tenure upon per- sonality characteristics as measured by the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT). The entire field of Rorschach Psychology was researched in an effort to find examples of quantitative and qualitative experiments which sought for and (if found) measured organizationally and developmental ly induced differences in group personality characteristics. On the quantitative side, sufficient parallels were un- covered which indicated that such effects upon human behavioral characteristics could exist -- enough evidence to justify the continuation of this study beyond the first stages. Using BIMD computer programs, statistical methods were employed in a multiple regression analysis. Service Tenure (commissioned service, enlisted service, total service of the 218 subjects) and Age served in separate sub-problems as dependent variables. Two sets of SORT scores (one quantitative and the other qualitative) for each subject were used as independent 27 variables. All correlations were found to be below a value of .20, and all were considered negligible. Concl usions. From the results of this study, the following conclusions have been determined: 1. Multiple regression analysis reveals no apparent re- lationship between Service Tenure and Personality Characteristics as measured by the Structured-Objective Rorschach Test (SORT). By the same methods, no apparent relationship exists between Age and SORT personality scores. 2. Although BIMD 05 did discriminate between Groups 1 and k, this procedure failed to substantiate the results of the BIMD 3*+ regression analysis. |n TABLE 5, the most discriminating variables are A, CF, and S, in that order. The BIMD 34 cor- relation matrix (TABLE 3) shows: Correlation Coefficients AGE COMMISSIONED SERV. A 0298 .01 17 CF -.0309 -.0214 S -.0376 -.0463 From TABLE 2, Average Age and Average Commissioned Service for Group 4 are over two years greater than for Group 1, while the group sizes and occupational compositions are comparable. Since the two groups are significantly "different", and differ mostly in the SORT scores for A, CF, and S, it would seem that the re- gression correlation coefficients for A, CF, and S versus Age and Commissioned Service should be relatively high. This is not the case. 28 3. If relationships do, in reality, exist among the dependent and independent variables of this study, failure to achieve correlations could be attributed to the following: a. This study did not conduct discriminant analyses between the distinct occupational sub-groups (aviators vs General Line, etc.). Differences among these groups may have served to counteract one another. b. Influences of the test situation may have caused deviations beyond normal proportions. k. Results indicating that the SORT scores are apparently random do not detract from the value of this study. On the contrary, pre-recrui tment and pre-commi ss ioning psychology test administrators would benefit by the knowledge that personality characteristics will maintain consistency throughout subsequent mi 1 i tary service. RECOMMENDATIONS In view of the results of this study, the following re- commendations are submitted: 1. That a discriminant analysis be conducted with this subject group to investigate possible deleterious effects mentioned in paragraph 2. a. of the Conclusions. 2. That a discriminant analysis be conducted between sub- groups 1 and k, using Age and Commissioned Service as variables along with the SORT scores, to determine if the former are determinant factors. 3. That, in the future, particular emphasis be placed on standardizing the test situation in every detail, and that 29 test-retests be given at intervals throughout the group as a check on the test situation. k. That this study be repeated each year for several years in order that the value of the SORT for military group comparisons definitely may be determined. 30 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Allport, Gordon W. Personal i ty , A Psychological Inter- pretat ion. New York: Holt Publishing Co., Inc., 1937, pp. 139-140. 2. Ames, Louise Bates. "Age changes in the Rorschach responses of individual elderly subjects," Journal of Genet ic Psychology , I960, 97, 287-315. 3. Bureau of Naval Personnel . Regi ster of Comm? ss ioned and Warrant Officers of the Uni ted States Navy and Marine Corps. Washington: Bureau of Naval Personnel, NAVPERS 15018, Jan. 1964. 4. DeGaugh, Roy A. and Cecil J. Mull ins. "Application of a Psychometric-Clinical Approach to Personnel Selection for Counter insurgency Duty", Personnel Research Labaratory, Aerospace Medical Division, Lackland Air Force Base, Oct. 64. 5. Dreese, Richard N. and William M. Russell. "An Investi- gation of the Validity of the Graduate Record Examination and Certain Personality or Interest Tests in predicting Academic Performance in the Management Curriculum of the United States Naval Postgraduate School." Unpublished research paper, United States Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 1964. 6. Fokkema, S. D. "De validiteit van groeps Rorschach scores voor criteria van de vl iegopleiding." ("The validity of group Rorschach scores for the criteria of aviation training.") Ned. Tijdschr. Psychol . , 1958, vol. 13, pp. 443-464. 7. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Stat ist ics in Psychology and Education. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1942. 8. Holtzman, Wayne H., Joseph S. Thorpe, Jon D. Swartz, and E. Wayne Herron. Inkblot Perception and Personal i ty . Austin: Hogg Foundation For Mental Health by University of Texas Press, 1961. 9- Klopfer, Bruno, Mary D. Ainsworth, Walter G. Klopfer, and Robert R. Holt. Devel opments i n the Rorschach Techn ique. 2 vol. New York, Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace 5- World, Inc., 1954. 10. Mc Cracken, Daniel D. A Guide to Fortran Programmi ng. New York: John Wiley S- Sons, Inc., 1961. 11. Molish, Herman B. "The Rorschach Test in Military Psychology and Psychiatry," Amer ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry , Vol. 26, 1956, pp. 807-816. 31 12. Rickers-Ovs ianki na , Maria A., ed . Rorschach Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., I960. 13- Sherman, Murray H, , ed. A Rorschach Reader. New York: International Universities Press, Inc., I960. 14. Stone, Joics B. _S-0 Rorschach Test Manual . Los Angeles: California Test Bureau, 1958. 15- Spiegel , Murray R. Theory and Problems of Stat ? sties . New York: Schaum Publishing CoT, 1961 . 16. United States Coast Guard. Regi ster of the Uni ted States Coast Guard, 1964. Washington: U. S. Govt. Printing Office, CG-ll 1 , 1964. 17. University of California at Los Angeles, School of Medicine, BIMD Manual . Los Angeles: UCLA, Revised Dec, 1961. 18. Yamane, Taro. Stat i st ics , An I ntroductory Analys i s. New York: Harper and Row, I ncT, 1964. >,2 APPENDIX Subject Personal Data ?>h SORT Variable Scores 37 SORT Attribute Scores 42 Program REGRESS 1 for calculating SORT Attribute Scores as functions of the SORT Variables 46 SORT Variable Descriptions 47 SORT Attribute Descriptions and Formulae 48 Group Means and Standard Deviations for SORT Variables, compared with Industrial Supervisor Scores, and Group Means and Standard Deviations for the Attributes 53 ABAC Tables for calculating RATINGS from SORT Variable scores 55 33 "-J \J Jl ^ J CT P~.i.L0i.^ u.::a 5TU CCL ~d.Jj * STU UCL --1;L NUM GI a? LiiC EL.L L« uii c ■ - i i MUM GKP bl-.C :j-X <-• . T, UujK ag: 1 i i ? 7 79 44 1 2 i 11 34 2 2 B 1 1 35 45 1 2 5 13 7 40 3 2 8 1 1 34 4 : 1 2 5 11 34 46 l 7 1 6 6 29 5 : I 1 1 16 37 47 48 1 2 1 1 5 1 13 6 36 29 6 : L 2 1 7 1 31 4 9 1 2 2 12 34 7 : L 1 5 12 1 36 5 0 1 2 5 9 31 8 : L 1 1 7 2 31 ' , 9 : L 1 1 15 2 39 | 51 1 . 2 7 6 1 31 10 : L 2 8 4 1 1 35 52 1 2 1 7 30 53 1 2 1 11 2 36 n : L 8 7 13 9 3Q 54 1 2 5 14 5 38 12 : L 2 1 7 28 I 55 1 1 l 4 26 13 : L 2 2 1 1 1 34 ! 14 ; L 2 5 7 28 56 1 1 5 9 1 33 15 : L 2 1 9. 31 Xj MUM cj:a SRC jj.uk> s.a; ^G-, 176 u 2 8 5 10 33 177 4 2 5 11 33 178 4 2 1 6 1 1 34 179 4 2 2 1? 3 3 5 180 4 2 5 14 6 ^9 181 4 2 2 15 6 4 0 Iw.jCrljJ.'.X' 182 4 2 2 16 5 40 183 4 2 1 9 31 GRP — Group Lumber 184 4 2 1 10 1 33 185 4 1 1 18 42 SRC -- Source Code 186 4 1 2 16 37 1 - Service Academy 187 4 2 1 14 1 36 2 - Kon-Academy 188 4 ? 5 13 2 37 189 4 1 1 9 1 32 DHS -- Designator Code 190 4 2 8 6 15 3 8 1 - General Line 191 4 2 1 16 4 37 2 - Aviator 192 4 2 1 17 38 5 - Supply Corps 193 4 2 6 11 33 6 - CluC 194 4 2 5 14 5 36 8 - miscellaneous 195 4 2 2 15 5 40 can SliR -- Commissioned Ser 196 4 1 5 8 30 vice 197 4 2 8 4 15 36 198 4 2 8 18 2 38 ■j-ii^ij SiJR -- Unlisted Service 199 4 2 1 Q 1 31 200 4 1 2 13 35 AGE -- Age 201 4 1 6 15 2 39 202 4 2 5 12 34 203 4 2 5 14 6 38 204 4 1 2 8 1 30 205 4 '1 1 . 18 2 41 206 4 2 8 12 7 39 207 4 2 1 11 1 33 208 4 2 2 14 1 38 209 4 2 2 13 2 35 210 4 2 1 10 1 34 211 4 2 5 11 6 36 212 4 2 2 17 38 213 4 2 5 14 39 214 4 2 1 18 2 39 215 4 1 1 14 37 216 4 1 1 13 35 217 4 1 8 8 30 218 4 • 1 1 9 2 35 36 V A I A B L S C 0 R i xu STU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 N3R W D DD s F F- M FM FC CF FCH A H P 0 1 52 58 37 45 5 0 57 47 55 47 40 57 57 56 48 40 2 60 53 30 50 50 50 55 45 67 35 50 50 52 65 20 3 45 48 65 55 70 47 5 0 55 45 50 40 38, 55 46 40 4 58 50 40 62 67 40 60 40 42 50 52 22 52 55 30 5 75 3 8 35 45 37 57 53 40 55 52 55 47 50 62 25 6 55 38 67 55 57 52 45 ^0 47 40 57 57 47 46 45 7 48 50 55 55 77 62 55 45 4? 27 37 50 45 46 35 8 52 41 65 57 77 50 42 40 42 45 50 63 43 50 43 9 67 41 40 45 35 47 60 65 60 35 55 55 52 42 30 10 55 51 42 42 52 50 50 50 50 35 60 51 66 28 43 11 60 45 45 60 55 42 58 62 50 45 45 47 52 52 37 1? 58 45 50 67 70 47 42 55 40 45 55 42 50 52 35 13 52 53 42 55 60 ^2 50 65 45 45 37 4 7 55 51 30 14 55 45 55 55 57 50 30 65 55 45 50 61 45 55 30 15 36 66 42 45 60 50 47 40 47 52 52 47 41 53 43 16 60 36 60 57 62 52 5 5 55 47 40 42 63 45 62 25 17 65 41 42 47 47 40 7 5 60 47 40 47 51 75 62 20 18 70 35 50 45 42 60 47 57 45 35 62 57 47 51 37 19 58 48 42 47 55 45 55 50 60 52 45 55 50 58 30 20 42 60 45 62 67 45 47 67 45 35 4 2 60 55 58 30 21 50 50 52 47 60 55 65 40 45 40 42 38 62 42 60 22 67 41 40 60 42 45 65 62 55 27 57 50 62 72 20 23 52 50 50 55 55 47 45 62 50 35 55 51 52 55 35 24 52 48 5 2 65 60 47 70 60 40 45 37 42 60 51 37 25 60 43 50 47 45 60 50 50 55 25 65 40 4 3 42 40 26 50 55 52 37 60 57 42 55 47 52 42 60 47 43 37 27 52 45 55 62 62 45 45 55 60 32 52 53 55 55 35 28 55 41 60 57 80 47 47 37 42 35 47 40 55 43 37 29 55 55 37 50 42 50 70 60 55 40 42 53 58 61 30 30 52 50 50 42 70 37 42 50 60 35 57 55 55 41 43 31 65 40 42 50 47 37 60 62 60 32 55 50 65 41 37 32 33 60 57 47 67 52 30 45 47 40 57 53 47 41 43 33 42 53 57 57 60 62 55 45 50 40 37 45 60 35 50 34 40 53 60 50 60 55 80 45 42 40 22 50 80 45 37 35 52 48 52 60 62 50 45 37 62 32 57 40 41 51 30 36 36 61 50 45 72 55 42 57 50 3 5 35 40 41 35 40 37 7 8 35 ^5 4^ 35 47 7 5 55 47 52 50 38 70 52 30 38 38 60 52 47 75 50 58 60 42 50 25 60 60 41 50 39 46 55 50 32 42 42 55 60 50 62 47 53 45 50 40 40 61 45 42 42 45 60 47 32 62 50 57 53 47 48 45 41 58 41 55 55 50 50 65 55 45 52 42 47 66 62 35 42 55 41 60 67 75 52 47 45 42 45 42 32 37 46 43 43 50 41 67 55 5 7 60 45 57 45 50 42 63 55 35 55 37 STU J 2 3 i\ c, 6 7 8 g 10 11 12 13 14 15 NRR W D DO S F F- M FM FC CF FCK A H P 0 44 45 45 70 67 80 30 55 72 35 40 40 63 52 30 50 45 40 53 60 5 0 75 42 42 57 55 40 42 67 41 41 43 46 45 53 55 47 67 40 58 65 40 50 40 61 56 4.1 37 47 42 60 45 47 70 52 42 40 65 32 45 60 45 41 50 48 36 65 45 45 72 55 27 40 67 45 40 60 41 40 45 49 40 56 52 ^7 80 4 7 30 50 62 32 42 55 40 40 50 50 38 45 80 70 65 55 4 5 65 40 40 42 55 45 38 50 51 61 38 55 55 50 50 65 57 42 50 45 55 65 55 35 52 58 41 55 57 62 45 58 50 40 60 42 61 47 46 43 53 48 51 52 42 50 55 65 40 60 40 42 63 43 58 25 54 48 58 40 40 45 45 65 57 50 35 55 51 65 51 40 55 70 38 42 47 45 40 50 65 47 45 62 51 50 52 40 56 46 55 50 45 60 55 58 60 40 50 37 45 60 50 37 57 60 46 42 37 50 45 50 5 7 62 45 50 55 47 51 37 58 42 58 50 55 65 50 42 57 47 45 45 55 35 42 30 59 42 51 57 50 70 62 50 45 42 32 47 53 50 33 40 60 36 61 52 57 70 47 55 37 47 40 50 45 52 41 45 61 58 45 50 55 45 52 55 60 47 45 52 63 56 62 25 62 65 40 45 57 45 47 65 60 45 45 50 51 68 50 37 63 56 55 35 32 30 50 45 65 67 50 55 60 47 52 37 64 50 53 45 42 50 47 75 57 55 30 42 40 68 46 35 65 61 33 65 50 70 52 47 57 42 35 45 57 55 46 37 66 36 6.6 42 47 67 47 40 57 55 45 45 65 32 48 35 67 61 46 40 50 50 52 55 57 45 40 55 55 56 55 37 68 58 46 45 47 50 45 58 57 45 52 52 45 55 53 35 69 55 51 42 55 60 50 45 37 60 45 55 57 41 63 25 70 36 68 40 57 70 62 35 50 62 30 42 67 35 43 35 71 48 56 42 50 65 40 45 65 47 40 50 60 32 42 50 72 •50 51 50 50 52 57 42 40 37 45 47 50 40 52 30 73 27 76 42 60 77 65 50 57 50 32 27 51 41 36 50 74 50 63 57 65 60 52 35 55 55 45 52 60 56 51 40 75 46 48 60 55 70 57 42 57 40 45 42 71 47 43 37 76 33 63 55 60 70 57 30 45 45 40 55 60 40 32 80 77 40 48 70 70 72 57 70 60 35 32 27 50 60 45 5 5 78 55 46 52 60 57 50 58 45 40 40 62 30 56 55 35 79 48 53 50 40 55 57 45 40 42 57 52 47 32 51 30 80 60 46 42 45 37 40 6^ 45 55 62 52 47 50 48 40 81 35 55 67 47 50 50 58 55 60 40 47 63 56 40 45 82 50 53 42 60 52 47 50 57 55 45 50 45 52 56 35 83 38 56 57 55 62 4 7 55 55 62 40 37 5 3 50 43 45 84 52 51 45 60 57 57 45 45 62 35 47 63 56 51 30 85 73 41 30 50 37 50 58 60 55 45 55 51 52 65 20 86 61 50 35 57 47 47 45 60 60 45 55 45 52 56 35 87 27 65 60 47 77 50 30 50 50 50 40 65 30 35 45 88 52 50 50 57 45 55 42 45 47 52 65 40 55 31 60 58 STU 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 H 15 NBR W D DD 5 F F- M FM FC CF FCH A H P 0 89 90 91 92 03 94 95 50 4 8 40 70 55 45 52 45 5] 45 31 46 56 4 5 60 52 75 55 52 50 57 60 65 80 45 47 40 60 60 60 80 47 45 65 65 40 55 42 5 2 55 35 52 65 30 4^ 50 4 0 5 8 47 55 50 45 57 60 65 67 47 50 45 45 47 47 47 45 45 27 45 45 52 32 50 57 42 57 62 37 37 38 45 40 60 40 65 73 56 30 37 45 43 47 37 48 43 33 53 33 45 45 25 37 65 37 35 35 30 96 97 98 99 100 55 45 55 55 51 42 58 43 52 45 51 57 57 65 40 47 60 65 50 67 50 47 4 7 45 47 55 50 70 57 57 50 62 62 45 60 37 35 32 30 45 42 50 65 35 53 45 53 47 41 58 45 70 41 53 4 5 41 40 37 43 60 54 58 28 49 43 48 48 40 60 54 60 20 54 56 37 101 102 I03 104 105 51 37 50 57 42 50 55 62 40 50 67 38 45 48 46 60 40 56 55 46 48 60 62 70 57 47 45 70 57 52 50 52 47 52 72 40 45 37 60 57 47 50 40 40 62 62 35 45 47 40 45 60 32 57 47 30 42 42 40 65 20 72 41 50 47 45 60 62 50 45 51 41 52 40 106 107 108 109 110 67 61 56 36 46 38 53 43 56 58 45 27 55 60 42 45 47 40 65 50 45 52 57 36 70 40 55 55 45 45 65 57 50 52 45 35 55 66 37 50 67 52 47 40 55 35 47 50 52 40 62 60 60 50 42 50 40 45 65 36 37 42 43 57 65 45 60 57 60 30 40 42 55 55 37 111 112 113 114 115 48 58 40 42 62 62 65 40 42 40 35 50 51 50 50 55 42 5 0 5 3 4 5 33 72 40 57 47 62 47 67 42 60 80 57 47 55 52 47 65 60 35 45 62 62 55 45 32 50 50 45 45 62 25 32 47 35 40 42 36 57 57 53 65 50 62 4 7 43 41 51 48 52 45 60 35 37 43 43 116 117 118 119 120 38 58 55 33 58 65 46 61 37 40 51 65 56 51 40 57 42 47 55 50 70 67 47 75 47 52 40 62 42 47 40 62 58 55 58 57 45 57 72 50 50 35 40 50 32 50 50 45 37 40 40 52 47 32 55 61 55 51 55 51 32 40 56 52 58 45 40 45 31 63 37 40 45 60 30 121 122 123 124 125 61 52 58 55 56 35 53 55 41 45 60 42 30 60 52 57 50 50 45 57 47 47 42 62 57 52 55 55 47 50 52 47 50 55 40 42 65 65 62 45 35 60 50 61 25 67 55 55 47 45 42 53 56 55 37 45 35 45 67 32 60 67 43 43 35 52 55 57 45 32 52 42 37 40 37 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 56 41 57 55 57 45 42 62 55 32 57 46 58 42 50 62 45 42 55 50 50 52 60 35 42 52 63 50 58 48 48 45 37 60 67 50 40 65 62 67 50 50 50 80 70 57 50 47 40 47 40 50 55 62 40 72 60 57 57 55 40 57 62 42 47 60 55 32 35 35 35 35 52 35 52 47 47 42 61 42 57 77 47 45 50 62 30 37 61 46 40 65 50 50 58 45 60 30 60 71 40 51 51 53 36 51 63 30 50 45 56 66 40 65 50 37 62 61 45 63 50 36 61 58 42 63 35 45 20 40 40 30 40 45 35 39 STU 1 2 3 U 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 N3R W D DD 5 F F- M FM FC CF FCH A H P 0 135 63 38 52 47 47 42 62 hb 40 50 52 40 55 56 43 136 73 40 35 45 25 52 60 60 50 52 60 35 55 56 25 137 45 53 55 60 62 52 62 55 50 32 37 50 50 40 43 138 76 31 42 57 27 35 50 62 62 60 65 36 55 62 25 139 42 53 55 62 62 57 45 60 55 40 37 60 50 53 40 140 48 53 42 55 67 47 72 50 47 32 32 40 58 51 40 141 46 58 42 62 52 62 47 57 60 32 42 55 47 50 45 142 58 41 55 65 57 47 60 50 37 40 60 36 52 60 30 143 61 50 35 40 32 47 40 57 55 55 71 57 40 52 37 144 50 51 42 37 52 50 60 40 47 57 42 26 43 48 50 145 65 48 30 55 45 52 60 45 65 40 47 45 56 65 30 146 42 50 65 67 65 40 70 60 42 35 42 42 60 48 35 147 45 5] 55 55 70 37 65 55 42 35 47 42 68 41 55 148 50 55 42 50 60 57 55 60 50 30 40 57 58 48 50 149 50 46 57 65 50 57 65 57 40 40 45 35 56 45 55 150 55 41 60 60 45 55 47 55 47 52 55 35 43 53 25 151 46 53 52 62 60 50 47 70 45 32 45 67 52 38 40 152 48 55 45 62 77 50 45 50 62 30 35 50 35 51 43 153 56 51 42 45 60 57 58 45 55 40 37 50 55 53 45 154 36 55 65 62 80 42 30 57 40 52 50 55 41 41 55 155 56 46 45 57 62 47 60 40 40 55 45 45 52 62 30 156 50 45 60 50 70 52 47 50 50 30 47 51 52 48 45 157 42 51 55 62 80 60 42 57 47 30 20 65 40 36 40 158 48 53 50 62 42 52 40 60 62 40 47 57 55 52 35 159 48 53 50 55 55 45 55 60 47 35 55 60 65 40 43 160 67 43 37 55 45 42 6 5 ^0 47 55 52 36 58 63 20 161 46 50 57 60 60 52 58 50 45 35 50 51 58 55 43 162 55 43 57 60 57 60 30 55 60 30 57 53 40 40 35 163 40 55 57 55 77 47 50 50 40 40 45 50 50 52 40 164 "65 46 35 57 52 52 50 35 55 45 60 35 47 63 37 165 56 53 37 55 37 47 70 55 65 35 47 38 55 58 37 166 55 48 50 55 62 40 58 55 55 30 55 40 68 52 37 167 56 45 52 50 62 45 60 50 60 32 45 55 52 52 40 168 63 41 45 57 40 52 45 60 47 52 57 50 40 52 35 169 35 70 40 57 80 50 45 50 47 32 42 51 35 42 50 170 73 30 52 45 50 42 60 55 47 45 57 47 62 43 37 171 46 46 65 60 65 52 50 40 55 32 50 53 56 43 43 172 38 61 50 60 67 52 45 60 42 35 45 42 55 33 55 173 52 50 45 42 65 37 75 55 45 40 37 35 66 43 50 174 55 45 55 62 55 55 50 57 47 35 50 45 52 38 60 175 36 56 60 57 55 70 55 57 40 32 42 42 43 25 80 176 48 51 52 50 45 50 47 65 50 45 52 55 40 55 43 177 73 33 42 55 25 40 58 62 65 50 65 47 47 67 30 178 80 28 42 57 37 42 62 35 60 45 71 25 56 63 30 179 55 56 35 40 67 47 47 57 62 35 37 55 45 46 40 180 6 0 46 42 55 60 32 58 60 50 45 52 57 50 48 55 40 STII 1 7» 3 4 5 6 7 8 Q 10 11 12 13 14 15 NRR W r> nn c F F- M FM FC CF fci; H P 0 181 63 41 45 60 45 52 42 57 60 40 60 5 0 37 60 35 18? 58 45 50 50 47 55 50 55 50 50 5 0 5 0 52 55 37 183 b5 50 4 5 6 0 60 47 42 57 47 4 0 55 53 35 46 20 184 61 53 27 47 3 5 50 55 60 67 32 57 61 47 52 40 185 60 46 40 47 45 45 6? 57 47 50 52 42 56 51 35 186 5 8 40 57 60 50 62 25 35 45 40 80 45 28 36 45 187 60 45 45 45 47 57 62 55 47 45 42 45 55 53 45 188 76 36 15 42 50 40 5 0 50 47 40 70 36 62 51 40 189 36 58 55 60 77 52 47 ^5 45 32 40 45 56 36 40 190 35 5] 7? 55 SS 75 45 50 3? 35 55 55 37 26 62 191 55 58 30 37 57' 45 72 57 5 0 50 30 45 6 0 60 30 192 65 46 35 50 50 42 45 55 60 50 60 45 45 50 30 193 36 63 50 50 57 47 50 50 50 45 55 57 41 53 35 194 36 65 45 65 77 50 47 50 40 52 37 53 55 46 62 195 61 43 50 45 52 42 30 55 55 55 65 55 43 43 50 196 55 53 40 .5 7 60 45 55 60 47 35 50 60 58 50 37 197 55 51 42 57 67 45 50 65 50 25 47 55 52 51 37 198 38 60 50 60 75 40 45 55 47 32 55 50 40 51 30 199 58 45 50 60 67 52 45 50 35 35 62 51 43 40 37 200 55 48 50 40 57 30 50 62 55 52 53 50 42 45 201 42 55 55 55 20 47 45 35 45 32 52 45 40 36 62 202 45 50 5 7 57 80 42 47 60 37 40 37 45 50 50 35 203 61 40 52 65 67 47 58 45 50 32 47 57 40 66 30 204 46 53 50 55 62 50 58 50 40 40 52 55 55 50 43 205 67 43 37 47 57 37 55 57 55 40 55 50 47 70 25 206 50 53 45 60 80 37 45 62 40 35 50 60 43 48 43 207 45 63 37 60 75 55 55 45 45 32 40 50 56 51 43 208 65 41 37 47 40 42 55 55 55 40 67 50 55 53 43 209 52 45 57 65 62 45 62 57 37 40 50 36 62 32 43 210 . 50 48 55 5 0 60 50 50 57 47 30 55 60 58 48 55 211 46 53 50 55 80 45 50 60 62 27 25 53 45 52 35 212 67 41 35 55 47 50 60 60 42 40 52 38 65 51 30 213 63 46 45 42 47 47 45 65 60 45 50 67 25 50 25 214 55 51 42 50 65 35 60 50 50 35 55 . 50 47 61 35 215 38 60 50 65 62 47 45 62 55 35 42 53 37 62 30 216 52 50 42 47 45 50 70 55 50 45 45 51 58 50 43 217 30 55 65 60 80 40 50 55 37 35 30 45 50 31 45 218 4? 53 57 67 62 47 62 50 47 52 35 40 58 51 25 41 'i v :. i b : i; l c c i; _; ST'J 1 MIJM 9 10 1112 13 1 4 15 17 ly 21 22 23 24 26 52 58 37 60 S3 30 115 45 4 8 65 95 99 105 45 105 50 93 55 50 50 70 58 75 50 40 US )lo 62 67 JB 3d 133 96 4' 37 6 5C 38 67 100 83 55 57 7 48 5n 55 103 105 55 77 8 52 41 65 94 83 57 77 9 67 41 40 127 101 45 35 10 55 51 42 105 101 4? ^2 11 60 45 46 118 12 58 45 50 100 103 60 55 87 67 70 13 52 53 42 102 103 55 60 14 15 55 45 55 36 66 42 35 75 55 57 8 3 113 45 60 53 60 33 87 40 65 7ft 87 4« 62 73 B3 63 67 70 55 56 43 40 45 97 'M 69 b2 65 20 5C 105 122 12 0 9 5 7 3 5 5 46 4 0 5 5 92 52 6 6 30 62 127 1C2 69 50 62 25 46 95 113 107 87 10 2 95 92 50 47 46 45 55 102 92 56 45 46 3ft ft 8 132 97 A4 z»3 bn 43 87 119 84 52 52 42 30 45 95 120 56 66 28 43 42 102 100 65 52 52 37 60 113 108 69 50 52 35 67 112 82 66 55 51 30 55 110 95 49 45 55 30 55 87 85 60 41 53 43 45 107 94 16 60 36 60 116 91 67 62 70 51 45 62 25 57 117 102 17 65 41 42 140 l]6 47 47 67 18 70 35 50 117 82 46 42 42 19 58 48 42 113 103 47 55 70 20 42 60 45 89 107 62 67 82 21 50 50 52 115 115 47 60 65 22 67 4] 40 132 106 60 42 57 23 52 50 50 97 95 55 55 68 24 52 48 52 122 116 65 60 73 25 60 43 50 110 93 47 45 45 26 50 55 52 92 97 37 60 63 27 52 45 55 97 90 62 62 77 28 55 41 60 102 88 57 80 93 29 55 55 37 125 125 60 42 52 30 52 50 50 94 92 42 70 93 31 65 40 42 125 100 50 47 70 32 33 60 57 63 90 47 67 75 33 42 53 57 97 108 57 60 58 34 40 53 60 120 133 50 60 65 35 52 48 52 97 93 60 62 72 36 36 61 50 37 5 8 78 103 45 72 78 35 35 153 110 45 35 38 60 52 96 118 47 76 39 46 55 50 101 110 32 42 40 61 45 42 108 92 42 45 46 45 53 55 103 111 47 67 47 42 60 45 84 102 47 70 48 36 65 45 63 92 45 72 49 40 56 52 70 86 57 80 50 38 45 SO 83 90 70 65 51 61 33 55 126 103 56 60 52 58 41 55 116 99 67 62 53 48 51 52 113 116 42 50 54 48 ^8 40 113 123 40 45 55 70 38 42 120 88 47 45 56 46 55 50 104 113 48 60 57 60 46 42 58 42 58 50 59 42 51 57 60 36 61 62 110 96 37 60 84 100 55 65 92 101 50 70 91 116 57 70 61 58 45 50 113 100 55 45 62 65 4C 45 130 105 57 46 63 56 55 36 101 100 ^2 30 64 5" 63 45 126 128 %? 5" 65 61 ■*-> 6ft '>-3 r -.- ', 77 48 3ft 6 0 4ft 41 58 41 55 123 106 55 50 60 42 55 41 60 102 88 67 75 83 43 50 41 67 96 86 55 57 57 44 45 45 70 100 100 67 80 110 45 40 53 60 82 95 50 75 93 87 78 7 7 93 70 60 7 1 65 60 65 6 6 6^ 76 6-1 83 53 5 8 40 6" e 1 69 8 7 95 85 95 85 90 100 99 8 7 87 80 57 55 58 30 62 114 92 74 62 42 60 47 125 110 77 62 72 20 60 107 12C 63 52 55 35 55 100 95 74 60 51 37 65 130 110 63 43 42 4C 47 95 105 45 47 43 37 37 102 89 62 55 55 35 62 107 105 69 55 43 37 57 127 89 67 58 61 30 50 112 125 53 55 41 43 42 112 102 63 65 41 37 50 107 120 51 47 41 43 47 97 77 63 60 35 50 57 115 105 73 80 45 37 50 140 122 66 41 51 30 60 107 107 58 41 36 40 45 114 92 85 83 70 62 30 45 110 122 99 51 60 41 60 47 133 100 92 55 45 50 40 32 97 105 112 55 47 48 45 42 92 109 112 77 66 62 35 55 115 110 97 70 37 46 43 67 122 39 87 42 55 35 55 55 102 90 95 38 52 30 50 67 135 90 75 34 41 41 43 50 117 97 95 48 56 41 37 47 125 43 45 41 50 47 112 41 41 40 45 45 45 40 40 50 57 99 110 47 45 38 50 70 110 98 107 94 92 8 5 90 97 112 94 8 0 65 65 55 35 55 46 47 46 43 57 48 43 58 25 42 67 66 51 40 40 110 60 50 52 40 47 115 107 92 120 98 100 115 125 1 16 97 "J5 100 85 92 70 60 50 37 45 118 98 90 54 47 51 37 37 100 112 107 44 35 42 30 55 107 69 92 49 50 33 40 50 120 92 74 62 52 41 45 57 125 102 87 5 2 7( 5 3 71 77 56 ft.'. 62 55 60 52 46 43 38 67 5ft 61 49 68 39 T: 58 4 6 55 63 50 58 68 63 61 58 ft A ftQ 76 77 49 66 80 53 83 6 0 6 0 48 33 52 ft4 74 6 7 5 6 38 57 6Q 83 61 44 49 59 48 6] 7A 55 56 62 25 55 loo 102 92 51 63 68 50 37 57 110 110 90 55 60 47 82 37 32 75 112 117 51 77 68 46 3ft 42 125 130 85 68 '• '' L ' *■ 4 6 l 7 r->0 117 qo 7 7 4fl hi 5 2 70 55 8 0 7 8 64 57 7 3 50 93 40 77 52 52 55 55 71 57 70 10 1 37 6 2 9 3 50 55 50 55 60 62 60 56 4 7 45 67 60 7ft 50 6ft 40 85 63 4 3 70 60 4 7 50 70 70 52 58 45 70 ft8 70 45 73 55 84 37 75 50 63 47 55 55 51 50 37 60 61 58 60 46 48 56 46 42 69 60 59 50 56 58 55 42 64 50 74 30 77 52 52 47 68 ftp 85 68 45 58 5 3 45 65 78 5 5 ft ft 40 78 50 82 42 68 47 54 62 77 45 82 42 84 42 51 57 70 55 74 37 57 65 74 42 72 52 97 47 69 42 81 57 67 55 83 57 82 37 97 Z2 71 57 45 97 35 80 53 50 58 107 25 55 48 47 75 56 57 55 55 49 75 74 47 53 55 59 47 45 65 60 65 65 45 49 70 68 50 65 42 57 45 39 47 59 70 48 42 56 60 60 30 56 55 40 80 50 45 59 42 56 75 49 58 63 55 60 47 67 101 60 121 37 98 33 106 60 110 55 99 45 113 33 91 72 123 58 108 47 111 37 90 52 ft 3 50 100 85 95 50 109 38 102 52 103 47 118 75 115 57 90 43 109 27 101 68 128 27 105 50 124 45 84 62 110 55 131 48 110 43 100 72 123 35 104 60 99 75 103 70 45 82 42 69 42 56 55 69 62 84 37 60 50 85 45 94 47 86 50 62 52 61 50 32 55 69 42 96 45 56 65 48 58 50 65 56 65 65 50 59 58 61 50 60 42 54 50 40 55 66 55 59 65 80 45 50 75 56 47 60 111 43 98 65 125 60 123 55 101 55 103 55 109 45 93 52 105 37 109 67 106 62 115 80 104 57 138 42 101 68 105 66 8ft 9 7 61 71 67 7 2 45 78 7 7 81 86 7 0 50 109 97 63 129 102 78 102 74 88 8 8 55 118 42 63 129 112 80 74 6 2 6 6 80 66 91 58 64 56 45 68 81 55 82 5 1 70 63 70 72 42 55 65 60 112 87 62 85 42 48 47 37 96 63 48 79 42 68 45 63 93 40 43 91 40 44 55 10 103 40 45 102 42 51 42 27 100 58 53 92 40 50 58 33 103 64 62 92 45 50 42 42 109 51 47 95 40 58 27 43 88 55 40 100 42 54 30 27 95 50 40 72 42 65 45 50 95 48 80 63 '3 3 71 72 73 74 72 5 3 66 97 73 7ft 71 69 Legen on o.uie hi STU 12 3 4 5 6 7 N11M 66 36 66 42 76 106 47 67 67 61 46 40 116 101 SO 50 68 58 46 45 116 104 47 50 69 55 51 42 100 96 55 60 70 36 68 40 71 103 57 70 71 48 56 42 93 101 50 65 9 10 11 12 13 14 1? 16 17 72 50 51 50 73 27 76 42 •*4 50 63 57 75 46 48 60 92 93 50 52 77 126 60 77 85 98 65 60 88 90 55 70 76 33 63 55 63 93 60 70 77 40 48 70 110 118 70 72 78 55 46 52 113 104 60 57 79 48 53 50 93 98 40 55 80 60 46 42 125 111 45 37 80 35 32 4R 35 47 107 95 100 58 61 56 55 37 50 105 100 85 65 69 55 53 35 47 108 103 97 70 55 41 63 25 55 105 105 105 68 32 35 43 35 57 105 97 92 86 37 32 42 50 50 110 92 87 56 56 40 52 3^> 50 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 * * * # * # * 65 76 85 86 4 J -W P9 102 00 66 77 66 52 49 62 65 1C7 136 7? 40 35 133 10" 46 26 137 45 53 65 107 116 60 62 138 76 31 4? 126 81 67 ?7 139 42 53 55 87 93 62 62 140 48 63 42 120 125 65 67 141 46 58 42 93 105 62 52 142 58 41 56 118 101 65 57 143 61 50 35 101 90 40 iZ 144 50 51 42 110 111 37 52 145 65 43 30 125 108 55 45 146 42 50 65 112 120 67 65 147 45 51 55 lio ]]6 55 70 148 50 56 42 105 1 10 50 60 149 5o 46 57 1 15 1 11 65 50 150 55 41 60 102 88 60 45 151 46 53 52 152 48 55 45 93 100 62 60 93 100 62 77 153 56 51 42 114 109 45 154 36 55 65 66 !5 62 155 56 46 45 116 106 57 156 50 45 60 157 42 51 55 158 48 53 50 97 84 8 8 92 50 93 62 93 62 42 oO 80 62 ?n 80 159 48 53 50 103 108 55 55 16U 67 43 37 132 108 65 46 161 46 50 57 104 108 60 60 162 55 43 57 85 73 60 57 163 40 55 57 9n 105 55 77 164 65 46 35 115 96 57 52 165 56 53 37 126 123 55 37 166 55 48 50 113 106 55 62 167 56 45 52 116 106 50 62 168 63 41 45 108 86 57 40 169 35 70 40 80 115 57 80 170 73 30 52 133 90 45 50 171 46 46 65 96 96 60 65 172 38 61 50 83 106 60 67 173 52 50 45 127 125 42 65 174 55 45 55 105 95 62 5*5 175 36 56 60 91 111 67 55 176 48 51 52 95 98 50 45 177 73 33 42 131 91 55 25 178 80 28 42 142 90 57 37 179 55 56 35 102 103 40 67 180 60 46 42 113 104 55 60 181 63 41 45 105 83 60 45 132 58 45 50 108 95 50 47 183 55 50 45 97 92 60 60 184 61 53 27 116 108 47 35 185 60 46 40 122 108 47 45 186 58 40 57 83 65 60 50 187 60 45 45 122 107 45 47 188 76 36 35 126 86 42 50 189 36 58 56 83 105 60 77 190 35 51 72 80 96 55 55 191 55 58 30 127 130 37 57 192 65 46 35 110 91 50 50 193 36 63 50 86 1 13 50 57 194 36 65 45 83 112 65 77 195 61 43 60 91 73 45 52 196 55 53 40 110 108 57 60 197 55 51 42 105 101 57 67 198 38 60 50 83 105 60 75 199 58 45 50 103 90 60 67 200 55 48 50 105 98 40 57 201 42 55 56 87 100 55 20 202 45 50 57 °2 97 67 80 33 70 52 65 8 0 50 70 45 62 53 85 93 6 8 53 5 0 70 87 6 1 98 75 78 80 50 7 0 63 6 8 57 QO 60 50 82 77 48 90 68 7 ' 75 88 60 4 6 86 45 5 0 80 53 52 73 45 60 4 8 50 7n 8 5 40 72 6 8 70 87 70 75 82 9 5 75 8 / 33 98 81 56 55 7^ 48 85 110 50 50 40 43 60 124 112 83 55 62 2C 57 77 112 52 5 0 53 40 62 107 10 0 95 78 58 51 40 55 139 119 79 102 f>2 122 54 47 50 45 62 99 107 92 60 52 60 30 65 117 97 77 49 4U 52 37 40 72 95 110 80 43 48 50 37 112 107 104 76 56 65 30 55 105 125 105 72 60 48 38 67 135 112 77 73 68 41 58 55 135 1C7 77 56 58 48 50 50 115 105 80 76 56 45 55 68 115 105 80 73 43 53 25 60 92 94 99 33 52 38 40 62 107 92 77 53 35 61 43 62 122 107 92 64 55 53 45 45 118 113 95 46 41 41 55 62 110 70 92 72 52 62 30 57 122 100 95 59 52 48 45 60 117 97 80 33 40 36 40 62 122 89 77 57 55 52 35 62 82 102 102 53 65 40 43 55 110 102' 82 85 58 63 20 55 110 112 102 66 58 55 43 60 118 103 47 40 40 35 60 87 61 50 52 40 55 127 80 47 63 37 57 102 79 55 58 37 55 90 90 105 100 107 135 100 80 90 80 113 120 92 92 80 68 52 37 66 120 57 '52 52 40 50 122 56 40 52 35 57 85 48 35 42 50 67 125 66 62 43 37 45 110 107 57 56 43 43 60 115 105 62 55 33 55 6'0 112 87 80 66 43 50 42 140 120 60 52 38 60 62 105 97 52 43 25 80 57 110 95 86 0? 99 79 9 2 87 77 85 82 72 53 40 55 43 50 92 97 95 70 47 67 30 55 83 123 115 95 56 63 30 57 99 122 105 51 45 46 40 40 114 109 97 52 50 48 55 55 118 108 95 59 37 60 35 60 87 102 100 64 52 55 37 50 97 100 100 48 35 46 20 60 102 89 87 49 47 52 40 47 90 122 99 72 56 51 35 47 107 109 97 47 28 36 45 60 75 70 85 69 55 53 45 45 109 109 92 97 87 92 77 77 67 81 62 51 40 42 100 61 56 36 40 60 124 37 37 26 62 55 100 75 60 60 30 37 129 122 100 63 45 50 30 6Q 95 105 110 80 41 53 35 50 1C7 100 95 58 55 46 62 65 124 87 92 48 43 43 50 45 82 85 110 54 58 50 37 57 115 57 52 51 37 57 56 40 51 30 60 51 43 40 37 60 117 120 112 102 100 92 80 7C' 79 7 0 53 50 42 45 40 107 100 105 53 40 36 62 55 65 65 50 50 35 57 127 kk 90 8 .'4 77 7 ' 61 64 50 70 57 59 51 7A 78 56 59 53 56 52 36 64 72 ^8 70 59 '.8 51 51 6 8 6: 5 0 55 78 73 62 70 46 56 80 7? 44 65 5 2 61 44 6 0 8 6 58 64 54 58 48 61 68 6 0 60 6 9 51 49 64. 58 60 54 48 51 4 5 5] 50 48 7 0 4 2 hi 48 45 8 2 50 70 4 3 8 0 75 70 7 0 ^8 68 52 37 86 73 33 8 0 33 60 31 37 36 65 79 37 94 32 67 42 60 60 34 71 66 42 64 47 75 42 89 47 88 40 60 45 55 55 73 45 95 35 84 37 91 50 80 45 57 94 47 45 106 20 40 54 47 55 70 55 75 62 52 68 35 60 75 7 5 73 50 66 57 97 45 63 60 56 47 74 60 52 62 70 60 65 45 39 72 70 47 50 60 76 40 49 60 56 60 43 70 39 65 61 55 60 65 69 47 67 47 49 45 52 58 55 30 43 60 53 47 58 42 75 40 58 55 51 65 52 58 74 30 45 50 53 50 58 70 63 77 55 48 58 70 87 45 47 60 45 62 57 74 45 55 100 42 48 45 65 64 57 54 60 70 78 50 49 50 45 82 45 60 45 80 86 37 36 75 53 66 50 64 50 58 75 42 69 56 42 67 52 72 47 56 35 65 70 58 87 42 71 49 62 50 86 37 55 47 58 77 52 47 58 4 8 55 46 8 8 68 53 60 70 50 70 55 51 57 64 52 71 42 67 50 61 42 70 55 58 62 50 48 80 71 25 67 69 42 62 62 60 55 70 55 50 52 95 40 52 47 55 70 55 73 45 7 8 6 0 6 0 8 7 36 65 45 8 0 8 6 48 77 30 68 60 77 55 91 37 62 65 76 50 84 47 85 55 74 62 69 52 70 37 52 47 102 37 47 72 61 45 55 50 43 47 68 30 55 55 57 50 48 45 55 45 53 50 69 45 48 47 87 109 50 121 68 101 55 103 40 130 70 111 50 109 75 90 58 105 67 123 35 124 27 119 57 115 67 115 70 95 50 104 33 111 57 116 22 74 45 103 42 107 40 101 70 101 50 111 57 111 52 113 63 95 30 100 60 105 38 121 43 124 72 93 30 103 52 111 47 112 45 99 32 128 60 106 75 109 65 100 75 116 65 120 40 111 32 111 67 102 68 100 47 96 75 123 60 111 72 78 70 113 50 104 35 104 80 94 48 122 52 100 50 103 33 91 50 80 45 111 38 113 25 103 45 95 33 98 87 102 22 96 2 5 « 73 rn 67 07 73 71 66 9 0 78 58 96 73 46 68 50 58 68 8 8 46 92 63 86 77 57 103 72 66 72 86 70 135 81 78 72 77 8? 66 6 0 38 83 38 5 72 9 7 93 66 53 86 78 86 7? 76 51 68 71 6 6 2 4 90 8 0 7fl 44 63 73 74 81 6 3 87 34 7 6 STU 12 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 lb 17 1m 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ml iv ; ; r * * -x * » 20? 61 4' 6? 1 1 Q og 6* 67 30 56 «1 66 3D 6K 126 10" Q? 60 73 76 17 44 68 40 117 96 2"-4 46 53 50 104 HI ?s 6? 77 58 66 so 45 ^ 1 20 9« »0 5^ 68 70 52 50 5P 48 109 67 2"5 67 43 ?7 12? OH 47 '-.7 SO 60 47 70 ? 5 4^ 112 11" 95 58 58 74 65 51 56 40 113 105 2^6 50 53 45 95 98 60 oO 10? 46 4? 48 43 Si 125 85 75 41 43 93 50 47 45 17 98 65 207 45 63 37 !0C 118 60 75 80 64 56 51 43 bO 130 100 77 65 70 93 40 45 55 40 112 68 208 66 41 37 120 96 47 40 53 64 55 53 43 47 95 110 95 60 60 51 67 61 55 62 113 70 209 52 45 57 114 107 66 62 77 71 62 32 43 65 124 99 77 53 65 70 60 49 62 43 111 49 210 50 48 55 100 98 50 60 70 53 56 48 55 50 110 97 77 52 53 60 55 59 50 50 109 53 211 46 53 50 96 103 55 SO 76 56 45 52 35 56 130 112 89 56 50 110 25 48 50 25 118 77 212 67 41 36 127 101 5C' 47 57 80 65 51 30 r>5 107 102 82 51 60 64 52 62 60 63 111 81 213 63 46 46 108 0 1 42 47 60 31 25 50 25 42 92 105 105 48 40 62 50 70 45 60 103 85 214 55 51 42 115 111 50 65 90 64 47 61 35 50 125 110 85 65 7G 85 65 40 60 30 118 86 215 38 60 60 83 105 66 62 76 67 37 62 3" 65 107 100 90 48 43 74 42 61 45 45 105 92 216 52 60 42 122 120 47 45 65 63 58 60 43 47 115 120 95 66 76 67 4*> 55 70 65 123 67 217 30 55 65 80 105 60 80 100 56 50 31 45 60 130 87 72 49 55 103 30 43 50 20 101 46 218 42 53- 57 104 115 67 62 76 75 58 51 25 67 124 109 99 65 72 75 35 47 62 45 110 86 LEGENf STU NUM -- Student Number. Numerical COLUMN HEADINGS (1-25) — Numbers are keyed to the SORT Attribute numbers found in SORT ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTIONS, PP. 49-53. * -- Indicates those Attribute scores where a constant, 60, has been added to the true SORT score. See notes in SORT ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTIONS, p. 49, for explanation. 45 PROGRAM ^EGRbSSl 01 MENS I 0\ y < 15,218 > , ' y< 25,218) • Iy(25.21B) = 218 ^ E A D lO#M>(I,J),I=l.l5),j=l,Li 10 i-"ORMAT(l4X.15F3.0) '->R 1 NT 5o 50 C"ORMA7(lrti//i 12 no 17 J=|, L ZJ& ATTKIBuiL SCOKa D^Il.ITICL'L IY(1,J) = M1#J) Ii; ELiFILITIOKS Cu?1 KrJY TEE1X SLC- i Y ( .2 , J > = y ( 2 > J ) H Olj x'- Cli BXFLj J.AT I CK OP AUDIT I OK 1 Y ( 3 , J ) = y ( 3 , j ) oii cCI.LTiJ.T . 60 , TO EIGHT OF iY<4,J)=y TJILSE FCEII/LAE . rY(5#J)=Y(2»J)+Y(7,J) 1 Y ( 6 , J ) = ' ( 4 , J ) i Y ( 7 , J ) r y ( 5 , j ) IY(8,J) = Y(5* > - Y ( 6 . J ^ + 6 0 IY(9,J)=iY(14,J)+Y(13,J))/2.-(Y(12»J))+60. i'Y<10»J)=Y(13,J> !Y(llfJ)=Y(14.J) I Y(12, J)=Y(15, J) TY(13#J)=Y(4,J) i Y( 14, J) -Y(5 . J) + Y( 7, J) iY(l5,J)=Yf9,J)+Y(7,j) ; Y(16» J)=Y(10, J)+Y(9. J) :Y(17*J) = ((Y(9,J) + U7,J))/2.)-M8fJ)+60. rY(18fJ)=Y(7.J)-Y(8,J)+60. !F( Y(4, J)-50 - )13.14,15 1 3 SEQ = 125. -( Y (4, J)*2- ) GO 10 16 14 SECJ-25. GO TO 16 15 SEQ=( Y(4 , j)*2. )-75 . 16 rY(19fJ)=Y(5,J)-((SE(J + Y(ll,J))/2. ) + 6 0 . U(20»J)=Y(11,J) lY(21»J) = ((Y(8,J) + Y(6.J))/2. )-(Y(5,J)+Yi7fJ) > / 2 . ♦ 6 0 . 1 Y(22» J) -Y( 7, J) IY(23#j)=Y(6,J)-Y(5,j)+6o. CFFQ=100 ■ -Y ( 10, J) TY(24,J)-((CFEQ+Y(9,J))/2.)+Y(7,J) 17 l Y(25, J) =Y( 14, j) -Y( 15, J)+60. DO 20 1=1,25 DO 20 J=t,L 2 0 lY(I,J)='Y(I.J) + .5 18 PRINT 19. ( ( 1 Y ( I , J) , 1=1,25) , Jal.L) 19 fONM A I (1H0, 3*, 312, 2! 3. 212, 213, 412, 613. 112, 113. 112, 313) END END Kote; js'ollowinf is c cfit irr-ut data cs-rd for Student #83: 0831 511100070038. Ci . 57 . : J .« 2.^7.: 5.55.6 2.40.37.53.50.43.45. Coluinnr If -59 ; r . t;.e . .1 V:"ric ';■!£ cores. **6 SORT VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS (l*. P- 3) Descr i pt ion Whole-blot responses Major blot-details Minor blot-detai Is White-space responses Responses closely resembling the form of the stimulus. Responses poorly resembling the form of the stimulus. Responses involving human movement or posture-tension. Responses Involving animal movement or posture-tens ion. Responses involving color and closely resembling the form of the stimulus. Responses involving color and poorly resembling the form of the stimulus. Responses Involving textural density of gray or shading. 12 A Responses involving whole animals or parts of animals. 13 H Responses involving total human figure or parts of humans. \k P Modal responses (Statistically derived) 15 0 Rare responses (Statistically derived) Number Symbol 1 W 2 D 3 Dd k S 5 F 6 F- 7 M 8 FM 9 FC 10 CF 11 Fch SORT ATTRIBUTE DESCRIPTIONS Notes: (1) From the SORT Manual (14, p. 15-16) (2) Each description is accompanied by a formula for calculating the attribute as a function of the SORT Variables. (3) Those marked with an asterisk (*'-) indicate that a constant, 60, has been added to the formula to render the results positive. For true SORT Attri- bute scores, subtract 60. 1. Theoret ical : Facility for thinking in broad, general or abstract terms; facility for getting perspective, visualizing the overall picture, and seeing relationships between the parts. W 2. Practical : Tendency for thinking or attacking pro- blems on the basis of practical, concrete, or very definite details. D 3. Pedant ?c: Preference for thinking and attacking pro- blems from the standpoint of fine, minute details; tendency to be perfect ioni st ic and to focus on precise, sometimes trivial detai Is. Dd k. I nduct ion ; Facility for logical thinking based upon inferences from elements; utilization of their accumulative synthesis to lead to conclusions, principles, or generali- zations; ability to organize details into a meaningful whole. W + M 5. Deduct ion : Readiness to employ the logical approach in which established or speculative theories, principles, or generalizations are applied to data or details for the purpose of analysing their relationships to one another (and to the principle probably involved). A balance between facilities i+8 for inductive and deductive thinking, especially when both are high, would point toward a mental adaptiveness or "efficiency" wherein such intellectual potential as the in- dividual has is the more effective because of versatility in logical processes. D + M 6. Rigid i ty : Tendency toward the dogmatic or toward fixed ideas. Higher scores suggest an unwillingness to change a point of view in spite of evidence to the contrary; low scores suggest an uncritical acceptance of others' viewpoints. S 7. Structuring: Facility for mental alertness and pre- cision and exactitude in perception of reality. Occasionally this relates to a somewhat rigid and formal istic way of solving problems, but usually indicates an awareness of and conformity to the environment and its demands. F * 8. Concentrat ion: Capacity for attending to the task at hand or for avoiding distractions from one's environment or from one's own extraneous thoughts. F-FNeg + 60 * 9. Range: Tendency of interests to be either expansive or to be narrow and confined. P+H - A + 60 2 10. Human Relationships: Disposition toward the perception of and attention to elements having human connotations. H 11. Popul ar: Tendency to perceive the same features in the same way as others; to see things as other persons do; empathic tendencies. P 12. Original : Disposition to perceive the unique, the different, and the non-conforming, perhaps even the eccentric; emphasis on individualism of actions. 0 13. Pers i stence: The determination not to deviate from a set course. It may appear as doggedness or st i ck-to-i ti veness It can range from inability to stick to or complete a task along to the further extreme of stubbornness, defiance, or contentiousness. S ]k. Aggress i veness: The aspiration toward goals by means of well -accepted and morally developed procedures; willingness and desire to work; sense of a mature self-control with social conformity. F + M 15. Social Respons ?b j 1 ? ty: Willingness to subserve one- self, even though no personal gains are evident; energetic acceptance of one's obligations to himself, to his family, and to society. FC + M 16. Cooperation: Willingness to use a teamwork approach; sensitivity toward others in combination with appreciation and responsiveness in human relationships. Willingness to submerge one's immediate needs to the long-range interests of other persons is implied. CF + FC * 17. Tact: Control of impulses and biases; maturity ex- pressed in the ability to maintain stable relationship with superiors, peers, and inferiors. There is balance between inner impulses, conscious self-control, and demands of the . , . FC+M u.cn social environment. — ~ — - n+oO ••'-' 18. Confidence: Ego-strength, self-confidence, morale; inner feelings of prestige or personal worth, ranging from feelings of inferiority to strong feelings of self-assurance. 50 It implies ability to withstand stresses and strains and to maintain feelings of self-worth (prestige) in the face of adversity. M-FM+60 * 19. Consistency of Behavior: Predictability of actions; tendency for characteristic behavior patterns to be stable and 11 a. ui • u j F- SEQ+Fch , Lr. well established. — ~ ■+ 60 20. Anxiety: Generalized apprehens 5 veness , uneasiness, or internal disguietude; self-concern and preoccupation with personal well-being, feelings, emotions, and sensations, re- sulting from a feeling of insecurity. A low anxiety score indicates composure; however, excessive composure, or almost complete absence of anxiety, may indicate a tendency to smother feelings to the point of seeming cold and insensitive. Anxiety may reflect itself in feelings of insecurity, expres- sions of inadeguacy, or constriction of behavior; it may also reflect itself in erratic behavior. Fch * 21. Mood! ness: Sharp fluctuations in mood, ranging from elation to depression. The intensity and duration of either phase may vary greatly. Fi^FNe9 -1*11+60 22. Act i vi ty Potent ial : Control of emotional energy; energy endowment; capacity to follow through on a planned course of action; concentration of energies in a given direction, as opposed to dissipation of strength in non-productive channels. M ''' 23. Impul s i veness: Tendency to act upon impulse rather than on a basis of a considered plan; reflected in spur-of-the- moment decisions. FNeg - F + 60 5! 2k. Flexibi 1 i ty : Adaptability; faculty for accepting and handling most life situations In a mature manner; capac- ity to adjust readily from one type of situation to another. CFEQ + FC 2 + M * 25. Con form i ty : Tendency to accept and be directed by the socially accepted codes, customs, mores. P - 0 + 60 FNeg: F- CFEQ: CF Equivalent (See ABAC Tables) SEQ: S Equivalent (See ABAC Tables) 52 GROUP MEANS Following are the group means and standard deviations for this 218 person subject group for the variables used in this study. In the case of the SORT Variables, a comparison is made with the scores for Industrial Supervisors (14, p. 7), intuitively chosen as the civilian group most closely com- parable with the subjects in this study. Comparative means for the Attributes are not available. The constant, 60, has been subtracted from the Attributes to which it was added earlier. This permits entry to the ABAC Tables (rear of Appendix) for calculation of ratings. T- SCORE GROUP MEANS Study Group VARIABLE Ind. Super. Study Grp. STD. DEVIATIONS 1. w 58.0 51.7 10.5 2. D 48.1 49.6 8.1 3. Dd 41.1 49.0 9.7 4. S 52.5 53.5 9.7 5. F 60.5 57.8 8.1 6. F- 46.1 49.0 12.7 7. M 50.5 52.2 7.0 8. FM 55.4 53.4 10.6 9. FC 46.1 50.0 8.0 10. CF 32.5 40.6 8.0 11. Fch 42.0 48.3 8.2 12. A 45.5 49.9 9.6 13. H 31.1 50.5 9.6 14. P 50.9 48.6 9.6 15. 0 35.9 39.5 9.0 COMM . SERV. 10.6 3.9 ENL. SERV. 2.4 3.3 AGE 34.3 3.9 LONGEVITY 13.1 4.9 53 GROUP MEANS (CONTINUED) ATTRIBUTE MEAN STD. DEV. RATING 1. Theoretical 51.74 10.52 Average 2. Practical 49.64 8.04 Average 3. Pedantic 48.98 9.74 Average 4. Induction 103.95 16.98 Average 5. Deduction 101.85 11.83 Average 6. Rigidi ty 53.48 8.05 Average 7. Structuring 57.84 12.66 Above Av. 8. Concentration 8.88 14.68 Average 9. Range -1.92 14.49 Average 10. Human Rel . 50.54 9.63 Average 11. Popular 48.63 9.03 Average 12. Original 39.55 10.18 Below Av. 13. Persistence 53.48 8.05 Average 14. Aggressiveness 110.06 13.86 Above Av. 15. Social Resp. 102.19 12.29 Average 16. Cooperation 90.56 10.51 Average 17. Tact -3.87 10.00 Average 18. Confidence -2.76 12.82 Average 19. Cons istence 14.24 12.48 Above Av. 20. Anxiety 48.32 9.58 Average 21. Moodiness -4.42 8.95 Average 22. Activity Potential 52.21 10.59 Average 23. Impul si veness -9.12 14.67 Average 24. Flexibi 1 i ty 107.17 11.54 Average 25. Conform? ty 9.08 17.66 Above Av. 54 ABAC 1 RATINGS FOR INDUCTION (W:M), DEDUCTION (D:M), SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (FC:M) AND AGGRESSIVENESS (F:M) T-SCORES FOR M ,20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 30 80 i K — i 1 ic p — i 1 1 1 1 30 o o 0£. o u 75; 70; 65; 60 55' 50 45 40 j 35; 30 25| 20 \ \ I , Hl"^> — ~ \ \ \ \ k N S| \ \ C ADOve \ \ \ uoN \ \ N )W Av< Wei age \ \ \ Bel< \ \ \ \ \ \l \ \ • Lc >w - \ \ \ 75 70 65 35 30 25 20 ABAC 2 RATING FOR CONCENTRATION (F-:F) T-SCORES FOR F 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 60 u. 0£ 55 O u. 50 00 LU 45 O 40 eo 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 u 1 r. / / LC w • / 7 / Beiow -y i ■we / / / Werag< / ~ 1 / / Z / / Z Above 7 / t we ■ Mi / / Hlyii 1 80 73 ■ i 70 ss 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 20 1 1 1 ■£ — 1 1 *■ 1 1 1 1 1— 1 jo 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ABAC 3 RATING FOR RANGE OF INTERESTS (P:H::A) i: T-SCORES FOR A 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 LU on O U a z < o > < 60 75 70 65 60; 55 i 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 • Hi nh / z gn Z z / Ak<- / z / A z / / \/ Average y z / z Below z / z Ave. z / z z / z . 1 /• / A LC 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 20 25 30 35 40 44 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 • Kistorica: .able scor These tables ar Harm RATI1TGS ,of s to enter table ABAC 4 RATING FOR COOPERATION (CF:FC) T-SCORES FOR FC 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 80 80 75 75 70 70 65 60 65 a: 9 55 00 50 c- a u 45 40 35 _ 30 25 20 \ \ 1 . ut: r,k . \ \ ni y'> \ \ \ \ Abe >ven \ 1 \ Ave. \ K l\ Average \ \ \% \ 1 \ \ 1 \ h. ^ \ \ 1 \ \ ■ 1 / \ \ \ LC )W • 1 r \ \ 80 \ 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 1 (0 35 30 IS , 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 for use in calcml Attributes, usin . (14, P. 25-27) ffi5 .ating SORT S.0RT "Vari- \ ABAC 5 RATING FOR TACT (FM::FC:M) AVERAGE OF FC AND M T-SCORES 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 80 75 70 u. 65 60 as O u. 55 \veray* !A*£ / Yd X / / . u;nu / / u rug n 1 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ABAC 7 RATING FOR CONSISTENCY (F::S:Fch) AVERAGE OF S EQUIVALENT' AND Fch T-SCORES 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 —?^- y^~ Ave. -y£- 35 30 r— J — I — I X 1 — I — I — tT— -I — I — I — I 30 25 I — I — \—yf — I 1 — I 'X — I — I- Low -j — ) I — I — Y 1 ,, I 1 — \Y-\ — I — I — I — I — 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 .80 75 70 65 u- 60 O u_ 55 CO LU Ot O u to 50 45 40 , Ui «u . / / ni yli / / / / / / /e / / / / / age * > Wei / / n« / / / DC low / / / / / / - u )W- / / *T-SCORE FOR S EQUIVALENT 25 75 35 55 45 35 50 L... 25 T-SCORE FOR S EQUIVALENT 55 35 65 55 75 75 ABAC 8 RATING FOR MOODINESS (FM:F-::F:MJ AVERAGE OF F AND M T-SCORES 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 v> LU o u UJ o < LU > < 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 / / I'll yli / / / / />• / /I / ** 7 / / ¥Y / AVLI U«JL Y .&' / 4 ~- / / / / "/ / / . i / / / L< )W - 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 i 56 ABAC 9 RATING FOR IMPULSIVENESS (F- :F) T-SCORES FOR F 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 O 80 75 70 45 60 55 50 45 40 j 35; 30, 25, 20 -•/, 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 ' I ABAC 11 RATING FOR CONFORMITY (0:P) T-SCORES FOR P ■ . 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 1 / / / / 'a bov y / Ave / / / Wei ag< / / / / A / / / Ave / / / - Lo w - 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 o u 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 1 / / / / / / / / Bel Ave ow / / £— j / QQ< V / . / / Ah / / / > / / / / rli< I jh ■ so 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 ABAC 10 y RATING FOR FLEXIBILITY (M::CF:FC) AVERAGE OF CF EQUIVALENT* AND FC T-SCORES 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 80 75 70 65 ^ 60 cm. O 55 UL co 50 LU Oi o 4S u oo 40 35 30 ?5 20 \ \ w; 80 \ \ \ niyn ■ 75 \ k 70 \ \ > Abov( I A 65 Av \ \j \ 60 \ N \ 55 \J S" Averag< \ 50 \ Rr» 1 ow Ave \ 45 \ \ \ 40 \ \ \ 35 - Low - l \ \ 30 \ N 25 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 * T-SCORES FOR CF 25 35 45 50 55 65 75 EQUIVALENT 75 ) 65 55 50 45 35 25 \ 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 57 ■mMM An invesiigation of the possible existei 3 2768 001 97002 3 DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY